Veritula – Meta
This seems both complicated and restrictive.
This seems both complicated and restrictive. People could easily sidestep the restriction anyway: nothing stops someone from leaving a comment with only a single emoji in it.
Too complicated/ambitious for a first implementation. Start piecemeal. But could be a promising approach if reactions to ideas as a whole end up being ambiguous (#2166).
Doesn’t need to be arbitrary emojis, it could just be a handful that you choose, each being a different flavour of acknowledgement.
Thumbs up,
Thinking emoji,
Mind-blown emoji,
Etc.
Doesn’t need to be arbitrary emojis, it could just be a handful that you choose, each being a different flavour of acknowledgement.
Thumbs up,
Thinking emoji,
Mind-blown emoji,
Etc.
Edit: X spaces are an example of a limited set of emojis working well.
#2166·Dennis HackethalOP, 6 months agoReactions can be ambiguous. It wouldn’t always be clear which part of an idea someone is reacting to.
I can speculate ahead of time, but I might implement reactions and find that this is not an issue after all. And if it is, I can either retire the feature or improve it.
#3121·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months agoThe Effective Altruism forum has an interesting way to react to posts.
There’s an ‘Agree’ button and a ‘Disagree’ button. Those are apparently anonymous. Then separately, there’s a button to ‘Add a reaction’ of either ‘Heart’, ‘Helpful’, ‘Insightful’, ‘Changed my mind’, or ‘Made me laugh’. And those are apparently not anonymous.
I wonder why they chose to make some reactions anonymous but not others. I don’t think I’d want a ‘Heart’ or ‘Made me laugh’ button, they seem too social-network-y. Also, ‘Heart’ seems like a duplicate of ‘Agree’. But ‘Insightful’ and ‘Changed my mind’ seem epistemologically relevant. Maybe ‘Helpful’, too.
If I did decide to go with ‘Agree’ and ‘Disagree’ buttons, I wouldn’t make them anonymous, though.
This seems both complicated and restrictive.
#2892·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 months agoThe purpose of the reaction would be to record a kind of agreement or acknowledgment.
That way, Veritula could show ‘pending’ criticisms to users, say – ‘pending’ in the sense that they haven’t responded to those criticisms. So in addition to revising or counter-criticizing, they get a chance to accept a criticism without it remaining in a ‘pending’ state.Posting arbitrary emojis doesn’t achieve that purpose.
Doesn’t need to be arbitrary emojis, it could just be a handful that you choose, each being a different flavour of acknowledgement.
Thumbs up,
Thinking emoji,
Mind-blown emoji,
Etc.
#4102·Dennis HackethalOP, about 2 months agoPosting arbitrary emojis doesn’t achieve that purpose.
Maybe it does. Any kind of reaction is a response that turns a criticism from ‘pending’1 to not ‘pending’ anymore.
‘Acknowledged’ vs ‘unacknowledged’ may be better terminology here, to avoid overlap with the current notion of pending criticisms.)
I like the acknowledged/unacknowledged idea.
#2892·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 months agoThe purpose of the reaction would be to record a kind of agreement or acknowledgment.
That way, Veritula could show ‘pending’ criticisms to users, say – ‘pending’ in the sense that they haven’t responded to those criticisms. So in addition to revising or counter-criticizing, they get a chance to accept a criticism without it remaining in a ‘pending’ state.Posting arbitrary emojis doesn’t achieve that purpose.
Posting arbitrary emojis doesn’t achieve that purpose.
Maybe it does. Any kind of reaction is a response that turns a criticism from ‘pending’1 to not ‘pending’ anymore.
‘Acknowledged’ vs ‘unacknowledged’ may be better terminology here, to avoid overlap with the current notion of pending criticisms.)
#2465·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 months agoThe way I picture it, as you hover over different paragraphs, a reaction button appears and moves between paragraphs. So it would always be clear that reactions are on specific paragraphs. The user would pick whatever paragraph they most wish to react to.
But this doesn’t address the scenario where someone wants to react to no particular paragraph but the idea as a whole.
#2628·Dennis HackethalOP revised 5 months agoFeature idea: page at /ideas/:id/guide which shows you an idea and helps you address all pending criticisms one by one, if any. At the end, it shows a message ‘You’re all set!’ or something like that.
Maybe there could be some type of guide for a user’s ideas generally. It takes him through all of his controversial ideas and let’s him either counter-criticize pending criticisms or revise his ideas, one at a time. And maybe the user could also choose to ‘abandon’ a controversial idea, in which case the guide would not show the idea again (unless maybe there was some new activity on the idea?).
#4056·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 2 months agoNow that there are user profiles (#408), the search page can have an option to filter ideas by user. That way, we can see that user’s uncontroversial ideas, meaning ideas of his that he can rationally hold, and controversial ones, meaning ideas of his that he cannot rationally hold.
Implemented as of 39c2686.
Then people could occasionally check the search page for ideas they think they can rationally hold but actually can’t. And then they can work on addressing criticisms. A kind of ‘mental housekeeping’ to ensure they never accidentally accept problematic ideas as true.
Then people could occasionally check the search page for ideas they think they can rationally hold but actually can’t. And then they can work on addressing criticisms. A kind of ‘mental housekeeping’ to ensure they never accidentally accept problematic ideas as true.
Then people could occasionally check the second tab for ideas they think they can rationally hold but actually can’t. And then they can work on addressing criticisms. A kind of ‘mental housekeeping’ to ensure they never accidentally accept problematic ideas as true.
Then people could occasionally check the search page for ideas they think they can rationally hold but actually can’t. And then they can work on addressing criticisms. A kind of ‘mental housekeeping’ to ensure they never accidentally accept problematic ideas as true.
Now that there are user profiles (#408), each profile can have a tab for unproblematic ideas. Among all the ideas a user has submitted, those are the ones he can rationally hold. And another tab for problematic ideas, ie ideas he has submitted that he cannot rationally hold.
Now that there are user profiles (#408), the search page can have an option to filter ideas by user. That way, we can see that user’s uncontroversial ideas, meaning ideas of his that he can rationally hold, and controversial ones, meaning ideas of his that he cannot rationally hold.
#420·Dennis HackethalOP revised over 1 year agoNow that there are user profiles (#408), each profile can have a tab for unproblematic ideas. Among all the ideas a user has submitted, those are the ones he can rationally hold. And another tab for problematic ideas, ie ideas he has submitted that he cannot rationally hold.
No need for new tabs. This feature could be integrated with the search page by filtering ideas by user. That page already has filters for problematic vs unproblematic ideas.
Ah, but I can reproduce when I manually make the selection by clicking and dragging to cover the entire quote.
Ah, but I can reproduce when I manually make the selection by clicking and dragging to cover the entire quote (and only the quote, nothing above or below).
#2637·Benjamin Davies, 5 months agoWhen copying a box quote from Veritula, the box quote formatting (>) is lost.
There’s a way to get what you want: if you select some text in an idea before hitting its criticize or comment button, the selected text should always be inserted as a box quote.
Archiving this criticism for now, but if you’re still seeing any issues, let me know and I’ll take another look.
#2637·Benjamin Davies, 5 months agoWhen copying a box quote from Veritula, the box quote formatting (>) is lost.
When you copy text for an inline quote, you wouldn’t want the box-quote formatting.
Done as of 19009b2. Discussions now have a link to search ideas, which points to the search page with that discussion already preselected in a new discussion dropdown.
#2912·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 months ago‘Discussions’ are too narrow a term for a collection of ideas. See #2878.
While ideas should always be ‘discussable’, that doesn’t mean everyone who wants to share an idea always wants to start a discussion. Maybe they just want to put some information out there.
Tyler recently wrote to me, in the context of a question he wanted to figure out, “would be good to Veritula this.” Cool seeing ‘Veritula’ used as a verb.
I have found myself using this term naturally, as in ‘starting a thread on Veritula’. I believe I’ve heard others say this, too.